Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "32742".
Did you mean:
2742
2004 Nov 23
2
ip rule to remove
hi thanks for your reply heh "Example: ip del rule pref 32742" is
syntically wrong :)
and when i tried "ip rule del 32742" it gives me error
# ip rule del 32742
Error: argument "32742" is wrong: Failed to parse rule type
so how to get get of these extra rules?
0: from all lookup local
32742: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squi...
2007 Oct 18
0
Window computation
...really confusing :-) The first set of traces corresponds to an OpenSSH
client that has started a file transfer session against a
(non-OpenSSH) server. The initial window size specified by the client
is 131072 bytes. The server then sends five packets in one go,
consuming 26, 32768, 32768, 32768 and 32742 bytes, respectively, thus
consuming the whole of the current window space. I understand the
meaning of the first line in the client's traces: The window starts at
131072 bytes, a packet consuming 26 bytes has been received, which
implies that the window size is reduced to 131046 bytes. The
rem...
2022 Jul 27
0
[Announce] Samba 4.16.4, 4.15.9, 4.14.14 Security Releases are available for Download
...??????????????? or modify request.
https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2022-32745.html
o CVE-2022-32746: Samba AD users can induce a use-after-free in the server
????????????????? process with an LDAP add or modify request.
https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2022-32746.html
o CVE-2022-32742: Server memory information leak via SMB1.
https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2022-32742.html
Changes
-------
o? Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>
?? * BUG 15085: CVE-2022-32742.
o? Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
?? * BUG 15009: CVE-2022-32746.
o? Andreas Schneider &...
2022 Jul 27
0
[Announce] Samba 4.16.4, 4.15.9, 4.14.14 Security Releases are available for Download
...??????????????? or modify request.
https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2022-32745.html
o CVE-2022-32746: Samba AD users can induce a use-after-free in the server
????????????????? process with an LDAP add or modify request.
https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2022-32746.html
o CVE-2022-32742: Server memory information leak via SMB1.
https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2022-32742.html
Changes
-------
o? Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>
?? * BUG 15085: CVE-2022-32742.
o? Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
?? * BUG 15009: CVE-2022-32746.
o? Andreas Schneider &...
2004 Nov 23
4
how to remove rules
...ript, and on each run of
firewall script its creates an extra entry in routing table.
Now what I want to get rid of an extras "from all fwmark 0x2 lookup
squid.out" leaving only one that what''s I needs.
here is the output of "ip rule ls"
0: from all lookup local
32742: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squid.out
32743: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squid.out
32744: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squid.out
32745: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squid.out
32746: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squid.out
32747: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squid.out
32748: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup...
2005 Dec 16
2
Kernel 2.4 and Centos4
Hi,
Has anyone used a 2.4 series kernel on RHEL4/Centos4?
There's a patch (openmosix) which I would really like to make use of
[seeing as I just got 10 diskless computers...] which is not ready
(yet) for the 2.6 kernel series...
Can I just drop in a 2.4.26 series kernel and continue to have a working
system? Or is RHEL now totally dependent on 2.6 kernel features?
Cheers,
MaZe.
2005 Jul 17
3
iproute2 rules not being followed !!!!!!!
...les :
#####################################
ebox:100.254~# ip rule list
0: from all lookup local
7: from 216.239.59.147 lookup main
8: from 202.141.80.6 lookup ALTER
32739: from 202.141.80.6 lookup ALTER
32740: from 66.102.11.99 lookup ALTER
32741: from 66.102.11.104 lookup main
32742: from 64.73.37.225 lookup main
32743: from 216.239.59.103 lookup main
32744: from 210.43.44.8 lookup main
32745: from 64.233.183.19 lookup main
32746: from 64.233.183.83 lookup ALTER
32747: from 64.233.183.106 lookup ALTER
32748: from 210.157.158.37 lookup ALTER
32749: from 66.249.87.99 loo...
2006 Mar 07
7
m:n or multiple 1:n?
I have a Newbee question:
i have three tables and want to connect them. so is it stupid to make a
triple m:n (rails style xs_ys_zs) or do i have to make a new table
(newtable) where i got multiple 1:n?
the habtm (has and belongs to many) do only work proper to join two
tables, or i am wrong?
-jens
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.